That was a damn brilliant article.

Well, it's one point of view, but I think that he is making some mistakes.
Also I don't understand his maths when he says:

$28,000 is a lot of product! Let's assume your product is a higher end product and sells for $500. That's 56 products. Which is more productive - trying to sell 56 more products - or preventing 56 losses?

There is a vice in the logic here. Spending the equivalent of $28,000 of sales in developing an piracy protection feature may save you from losing a lot more than 56 sales. I don't understand at all where he comes up with this figure...

Also, while I disagree with the developers who claim that every pirated software downloaded is a lost sale, the opposite is also wrong. This article suggests that no pirated software downloaded is a lost sale at all. The truth probably lies in the middle, nobody can know exactly how much, but I am certain that a lot of people would have indeed bought a given software if they couldn't download it for free.

Software piracy hurts business, and trying to argue the opposite is just hypocritical, or short sighted.

Indeed he says "most"... But he makes it sound like the balance is negligeable, and I'm not too sure it's that negligeable. And while it's true that a lot of people use pirated copies of software because they can't affort it, I don't think it represents even a majority. I know plenty of people who use pirated software, not because they can't affort to buy it, but just because it's there and easy to get. "Why pay when I can get it for free?" is a more generalised argument than "I wish I could buy it but I can't affort it". There are just as many $20 pirated software downloaded than $500 ones. It's not a question of budget most of the time, but a question of availability. If it wasn't there for free, a lot of people would buy it.

Indeed he says "most"... But he makes it sound like the balance is negligeable, and I'm not too sure it's that negligeable. And while it's true that a lot of people use pirated copies of software because they can't affort it, I don't think it represents even a majority.

You may be right, but just because someone can afford something doesn't mean they would have bought it if it wasn't available for free.

IOW, someone might be able to afford Photoshop, but would never buy it. However, they might use it if they can get it for free. So affordability is only one factor.

Meanwhile, I'm still using Photoshop 5.0 LE that came with my scanner years ago.

An interesting article. Thanks, Tarkus.

You're welcome.

Something that threw me off was his statement in dealing with an activation issue: "It took 3 days for the problem to be resolved in a proper manner. If I had not resorted to other less desirable means, the computer would have been unusable for those 3 days until the vendor resolved it." This left me wondering where his point of view is coming from, and whether it is indeed unbiased.

I can't speak for him, but I know when I changed my motherboard, I had to reactivate, and I was having a hard time finding my original Windows CD. I was offered a cracked version, and would have accepted -- without guilt -- if I hadn't eventually found my original CD.


Another time I lost my internet connection for a few days, and wasn't able to use some software from Pegasys that I had paid for, and wasn't a happy camper.


Meanwhile, it's trivial to find both Windows and Pegasys software that have no such restrictions.


And that's much of his point, that the good guys are punished, while the bad guys continue to use the software for free. And when you screw with the good guys enough, you only create more bad guys.

paying over a $1000 bucks for software is unreasonable and silly

I bet you paid that much for the hardware to run that software though.

So, what's good enough for the PC manufacturer is not good enough for the software manufacturer.

There are always LEGAL alternatives....my PS Elements came bundled with hardware....no 'real' charge at all....and good enough for most situations...

UserID: 322330
Real Name: Jack Ass
Email: a_bcdefgh_123456789_0@hotmail.com
Member Since: 7/27/2002
Last Visited: 5/27/2005 10:14:07 AM
Access Class: Citizen (1)
User Level: Visitor (2)
Bytes Downloaded: 2 MB

Please change your nick.

Thanks.

I myself am a software engineer but its for a military contractor. I think it would be safe to assume the government doesnt pirate my software =P

Of course if I was a store clerk and I saw someone stealing my merchandise. I would be

I think software is different however. Why software developers are mad about people stealing their software is beyond me. Software is not something that explicitely belongs to them. Heck if this notion of intellectual propery exsisted 40 years ago we wouldnt be anywhere near where we are now. Software development simply involves the manipulation of algorithms, makeing it just as stupid to claim ownership of software as it is to claim ownership of calculus. I will hate the person who pirates my software as much as the guy who invented 1's and 0's hates me.

However many software developers (myself included) do feel that their services are manifested within the software. But hey in the software world, its a perfect economy and if people feel they shouldnt pay for a certain software then oh well. I have full confidence in my abilities to know that my software is as good as it could be, has reasonable security measures implemented, and is of some worth to the general public. It'll be the marketer's and vendor's fault that it is be pirated on a large scale.

If someone told be that my software was being pirated, I would say that those business guys f'ed up (they do need some blame at some point). Software developers usually dont see any financial hits from piracy, so they shouldnt take a personal on.

Anyways that is a very nice article though

And congradulations to me after almost a decade, I finally bought a music album (Common Sense - Be)

I bought all my OS's up until XP. Why? f***ing activation. I will not tolerate it. I have no problem paying for my software, however there are a few things that really erk me. 1. Software licensing. When I pay for a piece of software... I own it.. not license it. The entire notion that I dont own what I pay for is ubsurd. The loan exception is Object Dock. But it is priced reasonably. 2. you cannot return open software. Money is a precious commodity for me. I refuse to pay $100's for the chance it does not work or screws up my computer and I cannot return it. I expect the same treatment for software as a TV or a piece of hardware. 3. I refuse to buy software or use software that ties my hands on how to use it. Hardware locks and activation ties me to my computer. I rebuild my system every 6 mo or so.

I totally disagree with #7 above.... You haven't heard of linux have you? Linux can be downloaded for free. I think $50 to $75 is perfectly fine for an OS.

With all this said... i think the article was the most balanced that i have read to date.

I have said enough...

Doctor X

Software development simply involves the manipulation of algorithms,

Yes...and Shakespeare, the US Constitution, the Dead Sea Scrolls, et al are just manipulated words.....so it follows they cannot be copyright or have exclusive content.

What drivel.

When I pay for a piece of software... I own it..

No you don't.

When you pay for a CD you do not own the music, either.

You purchase rights to 'use' it.

Tangibly you 'own' the plastic on which it's printed....eg...the CD itself.

What is on it is intellectual property, covered and protected by International Property Law....[Copyright].

In some [not all countries] that includes a 'right' to duplicate or transfer the content to alternate media...aka...make backups.

This presumption that programs, data, etc are somehow a lesser entity than 'your house is your castle - property of substance, etc' is bunk.

OK, so you do not hold a gun to someones head and jack their car when you steal this sort of 'property'....but if you  DID NOT PAY FOR IT WHERE PAYMENT WAS 'REQUIRED' IT'S CALLED "THEFT".

You can call it 'borrowing, acquiring, obtaining.....'it fell off the back of a truck', 'bloke gave it to me in a pub', etc' but wake up and smell the roses.

Real people call it theft.....it's less confusing when you abstain from attempting justification bs...

Manipulate words...or manipulate numbers.....

You ARE aware that mathematics is referred to as a language?

If you cannot see the analogy...stay with your numbers, because english expression/comprehension is clearly a lesser talent...

You purchase rights to 'use' it.

Use it/Modify it/Enhance it to your own liking w/o redistributing it.
Not just 'use' it.

Check your EULA's again Jafo, you're getting lazy.